Mohan S.Jadhav, (HUF), Kolhapur V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 2 (1), Kolhapur

ITA 295/PUN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7182 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 03-02-2020
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: IN RELATION T; CITA KOLHAPUR ON
• Assessee Lawyers: ARISE OUT OF S PASSED

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT . / ITA NO.295 & 307/PUN/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 & 2012-13 SHRI MOHAN S. JADHAV (HUF), 250B, PLOT NO.41, NAGALA PARK, KOLHAPUR 416 001 PAN : AAHHM9482K VS. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLHAPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER S PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-2, KOLHAPUR ON 22-01-2019 AND 23-01-2019 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13 AND 2014-15. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE RAISED IN THESE APPEALS, I AM, THEREFORE, PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE THEM OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. APPELLANT BY SHRI HARI KRISHAN RESPONDENT BY SMT. ELSY MATHEW DATE OF HEARING 03-02-2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04-02-2020 ITA NO.295 & 307/PUN/2019 MOHAN S. JADHAV (HUF) 2 A.Y. 2012-13 : 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.4,43,270/- TREATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS NON-AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3.37 LAKH AND ODD. IN ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE SHOWED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS WELL ARISING FROM SOYABEEN CROP, COCONUT SALE, GRASS AND MANGOES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) DID NOT ACCEPT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT HIGHER LEVEL. IN ADDITION, THE AO ALSO DID NOT ACCEPT THE GENUINENESS OF SOME OF THE AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION. 4. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION BY NOT ACCEPTING PART OF THE AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO DISBELIEVING PART OF THE AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE A OS POINT OF VIEW, THE ASSESSEE TENDERED AN EXPLANATION IN WRITING ITA NO.295 & 307/PUN/2019 MOHAN S. JADHAV (HUF) 3 ON 30-03-2015, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED ON REC ORD. THE AO, WITHOUT GOING INTO SUCH AN EXPLANATION IN WRITING, PASSED THE ORDER ON THAT DAY ITSELF, NAMELY, 30-03-2015. IN SUCH LETTER, THE ASSESSEE MADE OUT A CASE FOR NOT TREATING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION REMAINED UNATTENDED BOTH BY THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A), I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OP INION THAT IT WOULD BE JUST AND FAIR IF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET-AS IDE AND THE ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO. I ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND DIRECT THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AS PER LAW AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. A.Y. 2014-15 : 5. THIS APPEAL IS ALSO BASED ON SIMILAR FACTS IN AS MUCH AS THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXTENT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOW N BY THE ASSESSEE AND MADE AN AD HOC DISALLOWANCE AT 30% AND ALSO OF CERTAIN EXPENSES, WHICH CAME TO BE AFFIRMED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. 6. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS MADE AN AD HOC DISALLOWANCE BY TREATING CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE ITA NO.295 & 307/PUN/2019 MOHAN S. JADHAV (HUF) 4 AMOUNT AS NON-AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT FOR THIS YEAR AS WELL THE AO DID NOT CONSIDER THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION NOR PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY. I T WAS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARIN G BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ENABLING HIM TO PUT FORTH THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND EXPENSES. THE LD. DR DID NOT RAISE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION TO THE RESTORATION OF THE MATTER. CONSIDERING THE POSITION, I SET-ASID E THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR TAKING A FRESH DECISION ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE PR ESENT APPEAL, AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. SD/- (R.S.SYAL) / VICE PRESIDENT PUNE; DATED : 04 TH FEBRUARY, 2020 ITA NO.295 & 307/PUN/2019 MOHAN S. JADHAV (HUF) 5 / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (APPEALS)-2, KOLHAPUR 4. THE PR. CIT-2, KOLHAPUR 5. , , SMC / DR SMC, ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 03-02-2020 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 03-02-2020 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER -- JM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. -- JM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING ORDER SR.PS 8. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R. 11. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. *